May 23, 2007 (Malibu, CA) — Floyd Landis finally came under cross examination yesterday morning (Tuesday) at the hearings that will determine whether the cyclist was guilty of doping with synthetic testosterone when he won the 2006 Tour de France.

But during almost two hours that Landis spent in the witness box, US Anti Doping Agency (USADA) lawyer Matthew Barnett never directly asked the cyclist if he had doped. Instead, Barnett’s strategy was to attack Landis’ character and to show that Landis has not always told the whole truth about things.

Barnett asked embarrassing questions about Will Geoghegan (Landis’ former business manager) and why Landis waited to fire him until it was publicly revealed about the harassing phone call made to former TdF winner, Greg LeMond. Landis also wrote threatening things about LeMond on a blog late last year, putting into question how much sympathy he has concerning LeMond’s suffering of sexual abuse as a child.

Barnett produced emails between Phonak team doctor, Denise Demir, and officials from the UCI dating from the days demonstrating that Landis knew then that his team had his blood test results. During the hearing, Landis made assertions that he didn’t know how to obtain such results.

Even Landis’ choice of attire came under question, especially concerning the sombre clothing worn the day that LeMond testified. Landis was also questioned about how much he knew concerning doping before he tested positive on August 5, 2006. It also came out that 11 Phonak cyclists faced doping charges in the past six years. How innocent was Landis? Barnett ended his cross examination with a quote by Will Geoghegan made last week: “This is about doing what it takes to win.”

In the afternoon, the final Landis witness took the stand, Simon Davis, technical director of British-based Mass Spec Solutions. Davis, an expert in the instruments used in such laboratories, criticized the French anti-doping laboratory (LNDD) that tested Landis positive. He claimed that they did “not follow the instruction manual.” He also suggested that the laboratory technicians who testified last week did not understand the instrument (presumably an isotope ratio mass spectrometer) that they were working with.

The witness list for today (Wednesday) includes a possible rebuttal witness,
J. Thomas Brenna, PhD a Professor of Nutritional Science at Cornell University and expert on isotope ratio mass spectrometers (IRMS). Additional rebuttal witnesses may be named Wednesday morning as well.

At this point, it is not certain if closing arguments will be heard Wednesday or at an undetermined future date. A decision by the three-member American Arbitration Agency (AAA) panel is not expected for several weeks.